Opinion
A-1-CA-41114
11-04-2024
ASHLEY RENEE STARR a/k/a ASHLEY RENEE BARRY, Petitioner-Appellee, v. ROCKY BRIAN STARR, Respondent-Appellant.
Law Office of Mark A. Curnutt, LLC Mark A. Curnutt Farmington, NM for Petitioner Ramon Hernandez Law, LLC Ramon Hernandez Las Cruces, NM for Respondent
Corrections to this opinion/decision not affecting the outcome, at the Court's discretion, can occur up to the time of publication with NM Compilation Commission. The Court will ensure that the electronic version of this opinion/decision is updated accordingly in Odyssey.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN JUAN COUNTY Curtis R. Gurley, District Court Judge
Law Office of Mark A. Curnutt, LLC Mark A. Curnutt Farmington, NM for Petitioner
Ramon Hernandez Law, LLC Ramon Hernandez Las Cruces, NM for Respondent
MEMORANDUM OPINION
MEGAN P. DUFFY, JUDGE
{¶1} Respondent Rocky Brian Starr appeals the district court's final decree. In our notice of proposed summary disposition, we proposed to affirm. Respondent has filed a memorandum in opposition, which we have duly considered. As we are not persuaded by Respondent's arguments, we affirm.
{¶2} In our notice of proposed summary disposition, we proposed to hold that sufficient evidence was presented to support the district court's determination that a 2013 Ford Fl50 truck and a 2016 Ford Flex SUV were community property and that Respondent owed a separate debt on the SUV.
{¶3} In his memorandum in opposition, Respondent continues to generally argue, based upon the same facts stated in the docketing statement and referenced in our calendar notice, that the evidence was insufficient to support these findings. The memorandum does not, however, attempt to provide any new facts or authorities that might persuade us that our proposed summary disposition was in error. Nor does Respondent's memorandum in opposition point out any factual or legal error in our notice of proposed disposition. "Our courts have repeatedly held that, in summary calendar cases, the burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law." Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683. When responding to a calendar notice, it is the party's responsibility to "specifically point out errors of law and fact" contained in the notice, and merely repeating earlier arguments does not fulfill that requirement. State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027, ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 1003, superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d 374. Respondent has not met that burden in this appeal.
{¶4} Thus, for the reasons stated here and in our notice of proposed summary disposition, we affirm the district court's final decree.
{¶5} IT IS SO ORDERED.
WE CONCUR: JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Chief Judge, JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge